My post on Military Chaplaincy brought the following comment:
"Church and military just don't belong in the same sentence - those who do this have sold out"
So I guess we need to draw some lines and explain some things to set matters straight:
One of the most common comments regarding ministers and the forces is that we become part of a body that kills people and by doing so deny, and disobey, commandment number six which relates to the taking of life. Of course, what is said is, "You shall not kill' but this is a misquote of the actually wording (thanks to the KJV and the tools available to the translators then) for, as I understand it, the correct translation is:
"You shall not commit murder'
Let's dig in and take this all the way back to the very beginning (a very good place to start according to St Mary of Poppins),
The actual Hebrew (Exodus 20:13) has it as ס trə·ṣāḥ. lō (0לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃) which translates as:
'You shall not murder"
Interestingly (well it is for me) there is the additional understanding of the word 'trə·ṣāḥ' which means that 'murder', which is the unlawful or felonious act of taking a life, might also extend to cover causing life to be taken through negligence or carelessness. So the original texts are clear that this is murder that we are speaking of (i.e. felonious taking) rather than killing (i.e capital punishment, death of a combatant in war, self-defence, etc.)
The problems arise when we try to translate the original texts into a different language. For instance the first translation of the Old Testament was due to Ptolemy Philadelphus who took seventy scholars of their time and translated what we call the Septuagint (seventy) which we shorten to LXX. This is the original into koine (common tongue) Greek. In it we find:
'ου φονεύσεις' which is 'you shall not' and 'murder'
The LXX was a most accurate translation because it had knowledge ot the original and used the Hellenistic koine as an everyday language so the familiarity worked well.
The potential for trouble comes when we hit the 400 year old King James (KJV) Bible. Here we have less access to the modern linguistics that we have these days and whilst it has a myriad number of fantastic poetic elements (language of Shakespeare and all that stuff) it does have its limitations.
The KJV has Ex 20:13 as, "Thou shalt not kill." and this, being the principal Bible in the hands of so many for so long led many of the clerics (and the people who read what was as far as they knew correct) into this 'translation error'. They weren't being dodgy, they just didn't have the skills to differentiate, after all both relate to the taking of a life, and so in came one (of many) differences from the original.
The version we read (and there are many) can shape the way that we understand stuff and this is why I (and many others) will use more than a few when studying or preparing sermons and stuff. I often find myself turning back to the Greek to check (don't do the Hebrew that much as I really struggled with it). Here's a list of a few versions of the Bible and their translation of the passage:
New International Version (©1984) "You shall not murder."
New Living Translation (©2007) "You must not murder."
English Standard Version (©2001) “You shall not murder."
New American Standard Bible (©1995) "You shall not murder."
King James Bible "Thou shalt not kill.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) "Never murder."
King James 2000 Bible (©2003) "You shall not kill."
American Standard Version "Thou shalt not kill."
And that's just a snippet. Generally the more recent translators have all looked to original material and used 'murder' - something to be aware of as it makes a big difference as generations before us have found in their learning of it.
So - in a (extremely large) nutshell, we find that we should not align ourselves with those who murder and so, as our forces do not commit murder, we are in the clear regarding being part of them as ministers.
Hopefully this clears up the first issue relating to 'killing'. I will let you have a breather and then continue.
Showing posts with label killing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label killing. Show all posts
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Suicide - mixed messages
Had a very interesting debate regarding suicide in that the person was bemoaning the loss of a relatively young person and the selfishness of them taking their own life and yet was, in the same breath, basically applauding the BBC documentary and the 'brave' people who had travelled to Switzerland to end it all! Now is this confused morals or what?
I have done funeral services for a number of people who have taken their own life and the circumstances surrounding their exit have been many and varied. Some were terminally ill, some had broken relationship, others still were making a point that they 'would do it' (how I wish people would stop saying that those who threaten to do it never do!) and a couple were the result of an obviously unbalanced mind.
Some told me that the dead person was immensely brave whilst other told me they were immensely stupid. Some wanted a quiet, embarrassed, funeral service whilst others wanted flags draping the coffin and a heroes funeral with all the trimmings. But here at the place where the rubber hits the road, regardless of the route that brought them to that place, it is my job to comfort those lost and help them to make sense of their situation and move on with their lives. It is my job to help those who grieve and the get them to have some perspective and be sensitive to the situation and the ways others might interpret them (for people are often quite harsh, aren't we?).
So what do you do with someone who has lost a friend and blames them for leaving them in such an unthinking and selfish manner? How do you explain that regardless of whether one travels to Switzerland (who I will now have to regard as financial whore and executioner of Europe I suppose*) or kills themself at home on their own (does the absence of TV camera crews make the act more heinous in terms of selfishness?) there are issues that have to be addressed and truths to be acknowledged and dealt with?
Many of those I see who have killed themselves have acted out of desperation, although it seems that because of the energy and passion that men have when this point comes, what might have been a warning shot end up as winning a coconut! Part of my training long back told me that often the line between almost doing it and doing it was thin and that many seeking to exercise a cry for help do it too well! Of course this is not the case with those who travel to do it and because they have made the journey some seem to think the act is endorsed by being 'rational'. I fail to see how killing oneself is a bloody rational act, especially when the reason is that the person who has chosen to die was 'weary' (weary is not a terminal disease but being selfish and wanting to play God is!).
Let's look at it from my perspective for a moment. Those who take their lives at home do so because they have reached a place where they cannot see life continuing. They reach this for a number of reason and that the person is so desperate and in such a state that they can do the act (which must be much like standing at the edge of a rock face and jumping off for the first time when you learn to abseil) speaks volumes of the state they were in. When asked was it brave or cowardly, I have to answer (and I always do) that it was 'desperate'. They'd reached a place where they couldn't go any further and that's the reality!
Could they (those left) have prevented it)? The question is always there. Got there earlier, hadn't gone out, hadn't got back later, hadn't left them alone, had rung them to see how they were, read the sings that they now see with hindsight. The answer is always 'No' because they can't and didn't and even had they done whatever it is that demonises the situation, there's always another day and another crisis. Is this true for those who selecte a 'rational' end to their life? No, I'm sorry I don't think so for they do it clinically and in a way that has no passion, no turmoil, no nothing but the desire to be in control.
So for those who wish to laud and applaud one group and agonise and complain at the selfishness of others who are 'stay at home' suicides can I point out that being 'assisted' brings nothing except some questions for those helpful types who 'assist' (isn't it called 'murder' and isn't there a moral component to carrying out a murder, regardless of the paucity of the local societal values of the place where it happens?).
And like fertility. Even is people have the ability to create or end life the right to either is a moot point, often decided by the finances of the local NHS trust for the former and the ability to pay to visit Switzerland (or one of the other three places) for the latter!
Pax
* During the Second World War it was the Swiss who had Nazis in one room and Allied nations in others funding and providing the means for the continuation (and expansion) of the fighting. The only question raised was that of interest and the potential for making money from the transactions. In the same way Swiss vaults housed (and still do I imaging) works of art, gold and many other artefacts of a Nazi regime) It is for this reasons that I have regarded Switzerland as the 'Whore of Europe'. Now they (proudly) add the label 'executioner' to their menu!
I have done funeral services for a number of people who have taken their own life and the circumstances surrounding their exit have been many and varied. Some were terminally ill, some had broken relationship, others still were making a point that they 'would do it' (how I wish people would stop saying that those who threaten to do it never do!) and a couple were the result of an obviously unbalanced mind.
Some told me that the dead person was immensely brave whilst other told me they were immensely stupid. Some wanted a quiet, embarrassed, funeral service whilst others wanted flags draping the coffin and a heroes funeral with all the trimmings. But here at the place where the rubber hits the road, regardless of the route that brought them to that place, it is my job to comfort those lost and help them to make sense of their situation and move on with their lives. It is my job to help those who grieve and the get them to have some perspective and be sensitive to the situation and the ways others might interpret them (for people are often quite harsh, aren't we?).
So what do you do with someone who has lost a friend and blames them for leaving them in such an unthinking and selfish manner? How do you explain that regardless of whether one travels to Switzerland (who I will now have to regard as financial whore and executioner of Europe I suppose*) or kills themself at home on their own (does the absence of TV camera crews make the act more heinous in terms of selfishness?) there are issues that have to be addressed and truths to be acknowledged and dealt with?
Many of those I see who have killed themselves have acted out of desperation, although it seems that because of the energy and passion that men have when this point comes, what might have been a warning shot end up as winning a coconut! Part of my training long back told me that often the line between almost doing it and doing it was thin and that many seeking to exercise a cry for help do it too well! Of course this is not the case with those who travel to do it and because they have made the journey some seem to think the act is endorsed by being 'rational'. I fail to see how killing oneself is a bloody rational act, especially when the reason is that the person who has chosen to die was 'weary' (weary is not a terminal disease but being selfish and wanting to play God is!).
Let's look at it from my perspective for a moment. Those who take their lives at home do so because they have reached a place where they cannot see life continuing. They reach this for a number of reason and that the person is so desperate and in such a state that they can do the act (which must be much like standing at the edge of a rock face and jumping off for the first time when you learn to abseil) speaks volumes of the state they were in. When asked was it brave or cowardly, I have to answer (and I always do) that it was 'desperate'. They'd reached a place where they couldn't go any further and that's the reality!
Could they (those left) have prevented it)? The question is always there. Got there earlier, hadn't gone out, hadn't got back later, hadn't left them alone, had rung them to see how they were, read the sings that they now see with hindsight. The answer is always 'No' because they can't and didn't and even had they done whatever it is that demonises the situation, there's always another day and another crisis. Is this true for those who selecte a 'rational' end to their life? No, I'm sorry I don't think so for they do it clinically and in a way that has no passion, no turmoil, no nothing but the desire to be in control.
So for those who wish to laud and applaud one group and agonise and complain at the selfishness of others who are 'stay at home' suicides can I point out that being 'assisted' brings nothing except some questions for those helpful types who 'assist' (isn't it called 'murder' and isn't there a moral component to carrying out a murder, regardless of the paucity of the local societal values of the place where it happens?).
And like fertility. Even is people have the ability to create or end life the right to either is a moot point, often decided by the finances of the local NHS trust for the former and the ability to pay to visit Switzerland (or one of the other three places) for the latter!
Pax
* During the Second World War it was the Swiss who had Nazis in one room and Allied nations in others funding and providing the means for the continuation (and expansion) of the fighting. The only question raised was that of interest and the potential for making money from the transactions. In the same way Swiss vaults housed (and still do I imaging) works of art, gold and many other artefacts of a Nazi regime) It is for this reasons that I have regarded Switzerland as the 'Whore of Europe'. Now they (proudly) add the label 'executioner' to their menu!
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Protesters shot by Israeli forces
Reports are coming in regarding people having been killed by Israeli troops who opened fire on protesters at the various border points as they marked the founding of Israel in 1948.
Although the Israelis are pointing to the fact that the protesters had broken through the border fencing and claiming that these people posed a threat, I have to say that I fear the greatest threat to Israel is their shooting of unarmed demonstrators. Israel considers themselves to have merely used 'selective fire' but the deaths and wounded will only cause more tension and erode the already lessened goodwill from Egypt. Just how much of a threat the man dancing before a camera only to be shot, as shown on the ten o'clock news tonight, remains to be seen. How much damage footage like that will do is obvious and demonstrates a lack of balance, perspective and political (let alone moral) intelligence.
The news has already shown people calling for the Islamic world to unite and make a stand against Israel and this is only, sadly, the tip of the emerging iceberg that seeks to sink Middle East peace and drag the US (and therefore by inference and association) others into yet another area of conflict.
What a sadness.
Pax
Although the Israelis are pointing to the fact that the protesters had broken through the border fencing and claiming that these people posed a threat, I have to say that I fear the greatest threat to Israel is their shooting of unarmed demonstrators. Israel considers themselves to have merely used 'selective fire' but the deaths and wounded will only cause more tension and erode the already lessened goodwill from Egypt. Just how much of a threat the man dancing before a camera only to be shot, as shown on the ten o'clock news tonight, remains to be seen. How much damage footage like that will do is obvious and demonstrates a lack of balance, perspective and political (let alone moral) intelligence.
The news has already shown people calling for the Islamic world to unite and make a stand against Israel and this is only, sadly, the tip of the emerging iceberg that seeks to sink Middle East peace and drag the US (and therefore by inference and association) others into yet another area of conflict.
What a sadness.
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)